Talk:Tesla, Inc./Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rfc regarding Tesla's founders

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This Rfc comes to resolve an ongoing impasse as to who should be listed as the founders for Tesla Inc. One argument states that only Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning should be designated as the founders because they originally incorporated the company which ultimately became Tesla Inc. Another argument states that Elon Musk, Ian Wright and J.B. Straubel should also be included as founders because a lawsuit settlement agreement stipulated that they should be designated as "co-founders". Bearing this in mind, which figures (if any) should be listed as founders in the infobox section? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney, Stonkaments, Stepho-wrs, QRep2020, and MartinezMD:Emiya1980 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Maxeto0910, ReferenceMan, Lklundin, Ptrnext, Lfstevens, Ita140188, JShark, El C, and General Ization: What are your thoughts on this issue? This discussion has been going on for more than a month and a consensus has still not been reached. Consequently, your contribution to this discussion (whatever it may be) would be very much appreciated.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Continue to list in infobox as a redirect to section. This is far too complex a discussion to include in the infobox which is supposed to a brief summary. That’s why the stable solution was just to point readers to the section of the article that places it all in the proper context. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

State Eberhard and Tarpenning as the founders, link to section with "(See § Founding)". Eberhard and Tarpenning founded the company, no question there. The complexity of the "founder" titles situation though necessitates a link to the section with the appropriate details. QRep2020 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I think QRep200's proposal sounds like a fair compromise. Just because Elon Musk and his cronies are the current owners of Tesla does not give them carte blanche to rewrite the company's history. Facts are facts. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

FFS, do we have to revisit this over and over and over?

There is no formal definition of "founder", so there is no "facts is facts" argument.

Yes, Eberhard and Tarpenning registered the company - that is what many people think a founder is. But again, no formal definition. And even those 2 with the most to lose/gain agreed to 5 founders.

There is an argument that E+T started a teeny weeny struggling company but that Musk brought in enough money (his and others) to make it a financially viable company.

After the law case they all agreed there were 5 founders - no formal definition but if those directly involved (with various degrees of finance and reputation) all agree then who are you to disagree.:::No matter which way you choose for the infobox there will be Musk fanboys and Musk haters saying to change it the other, no matter how many explanations you put in.

Its complicated - there is no right answer. The current infobox solution is our best compromise for a no-right-answer situation.

Search for "founder" in archives 2 and 3 for many previous discussions. Do you have anything that wasn't said before?

Leave the damn thing alone and find something productive to do.  Stepho  talk  05:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is a formal definition of what constitutes a founder. Wikipedia's organizational founder article defines a founder as "a person who has undertaken some or all of the formational work needed to create a new organization, whether it is a business, a charitable organization, a governing body, a school, a group of entertainers, or any other type of organization." Likewise, Oxford American Dictionary defines the verb, "found", as "to establish , to originate, to provide money for starting (an institution)." Musk may be responsible for building Tesla into a successful company but he was not present at let alone involved in its creation. That is what constitutes a founder. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, there is a court ruling striking down Eberard's and Tarpenning's argument that they were the company's sole founders. However, this is hardly conclusive. Judicial precedent is always changing. Just recently in 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade's long accepted rationale that having an abortion was an inalienable right enforceable in every state. Moreover, given that the ruling on Tesla's founding is not a SCOTUS decision but that of a mere county court, whose to say the legal argument it based its decision on will not be overturned by a higher court involving a case of similar facts?

Additionally, the terms of a settlement agreement is hardly definitive proof that both sides in fact reached a genuine meeting of the minds. Many variables come into play in a plaintiff's decision to settle. It often has little to do with an actual change of heart on why they filed the suit in the first place.

Finally, fear of disruptive editing by a bunch of internet trolls who are Musk fans is no argument for defending a flagrantly dishonest claim. It's the equivalent of removing all mention of Joe Biden winning the 2020 election for fear of earning the ire of Trump supporters who insist (in the face of all evidence to the contrary) that the election was stolen. There is always the risk of angering people who disagree with you. The only question is whether you can back up your claim with objective sources and corroborate that they are reliable before a majority of editors. Once that consensus is obtained, it cannot be overturned unless those who oppose it go through proper channels and can convince a sufficient number of editors that enough evidence exists to bring the previous decision into question.Emiya1980 (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Responding to RfC.

First - I agree that it's unreal that so much can verbiage can be expended on an issue like this but it's how Wikipedia works. No issue is ever really settled and it is very frustrating.

Second - Whose 'fault' is that? Everyone things it's the other guy. The basis we work on is good faith. Please stick with assuming good faith so, in this case, best leave the issue of Musk lovers and haters who may or may not edit here alone. It is irrelevant.

Third - The courts decision may be overturned but any party to it who decides that they regret their acquiescence has had fourteen years to try and overturn it and haven't - so saying it is "hardly conclusive" is a is a very poor argument.

The unchallenged agreement of all the parties on exactly the issue of who founded is the best, most definitive, thing we are ever likely to get with something like this.

So the founders are (by their own unchallenged mutual agreement) five in number and there is no reason for not including all of them in the info box. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason to only include two, and readers can see the first section very fast anyway. Support all 5 without the section link if possible since these people were indeed integral to the success, otherwise leave nothing and just link. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The language of the agreement - what is known publicly about it at least - centers on "co-founder" status though. That's a critical point of contention from all of the previous Talk page discussions. QRep2020 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't co-founder just mean there's multiple founders? "Co-" is not a synonym for "Vice". Aaron Liu (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

https://foundersnetwork.com/blog/founder-vs-cofounder/ QRep2020 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

But all of them call themselves co-founders. There's nothing where one of the two and one of the others in the five appear at the same time and one of them calls himself a founder Aaron Liu (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That article only confuses things further: "a founder is a person who establishes a business, turning profitable ideas into actual profit." So you're not a founder if you don't turn an idea into actual profit? By that definition, there's a lot of non-founders out there. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said above - it's complicated.

foundersnetwork.com is just a company that helps startups - presumably for a fee. I see nothing that makes their opinion official.

"undertaken some or all of the formational work needed to create a new organization" could be applied to any of the 5 or not depending on further definitions. Formational is vague. Create is vague. It just means those involved in the early days. It's complicated.

"found", "to establish", "to originate", "to provide money for starting" is also vague. E+T registered the company. Musk brought in money. The other 2 certainly helped establish the early company. It's complicated.

The infobox is meant to summarise things in simple terms - so that you see things at a glance. When it's complicated it should either be silent or simply point to the fuller argument.

If you make the infobox say "E+T but see below" then you will get Musk fanboys saying he MUST, MUST, MUST be in the infobox.

If you make the infobox say all 5 then you will get Musk haters saying he must NOT, NOT, NOT be in the infobox. And because the term founder/cofounder is not well defined, both sides will find various definitions and declarations, etc to support their argument. Both sides will be right and both sides will be wrong. It's complicated.

For what it is worth, I favour the 5 founders view. But because it is complicated I am quite happy to not say that in the infobox. WP:CONFLICTING is an essay suggesting that we just present both viewpoints and leave it to the reader - which is what we already do.

Did I say that it's complicated? Better put it in another time - it's complicated !  Stepho  talk  23:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything in the world that makes the use of a word "official" or not. What I provided was an example of 'co-founder' and 'founder' being used in a non-synonymous manner. And it is one of many examples. QRep2020 (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

1. The dictionary disagrees.
2. But all of them call themselves co-founders. There's nothing where one of the two and one of the others in the five appear at the same time and one of them calls himself a founder, so whether there's a difference is moot. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Since when do dictionaries officiate anything? "The lexicographer is an empirical scientist", not a world-builder.

Who cares what they call themselves? Musk calls himself a technoking, yet the article rightfully ascribes to him the title of CEO. QRep2020 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Tesla or any RS uses the terms non-synonymously. I'm sure that none of us here will consider your argument until you provide much more evidence to the contrary. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Continue to list in Infobox as redirect to section. As one of the first things people see in an article, the infobox is analogous to the lead. We should strive to be matter of fact and not overly contentious. The infobox should also be streamlined. It should be as concrete and straightforward as possible. The various perspectives, issues, and litigation regarding founding are best handled in the article body. Trying to distill too much into Infobox fields also creates perpetual disagreement in edits. Better to keep this material to the body where it can be expressed with nuance, different views, and attributed as necessary JArthur1984 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

State Eberhard and Tarpenning as the founders; also link to section. Those two are clearly, factually founders. It's not WP's job to present "legal fictions" as if they are reality, and to the extent other people like Musk are sometimes claimed to be founders based on such a legal fiction, that should be covered in the article body and is not infobox (or lead section) material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

List Eberhard and Tarpenning, but definitely link also. Since those two seem to be the closest thing Tesla has to outright founders, I'd list them there. Part of me thinks that Elon Musk should be included as an angel investor, but I think that is best left to the Key Figures section of the infobox. I would not be opposed to listing him in the present IB as both CEO and Angel Investor. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

List them all, with a note or something pointing to the controversy. This reeks of Elon Musk hate-boner.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Musk hate-boner" - this proves my point! No matter whether we list 2 or 5 there will always be somebody saying we are rabid Musk hater/lovers and we MUST, MUST, MUST do it the other way. Just the note+link is the least controversial way.  Stepho  talk  23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

List then all, since that is the official, reliably sourced position, as opposed to our OR with respect to how we decide to define who are the founders. Of course there should be a link to the "Founders" section to discuss the controversy. Rlendog (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• List Eberhard and Tarpenning only, possibly with a link to the see-also section (but I don't feel it's strictly necessary.) The highest-quality and most in-depth sources are clear that they are the actual founders and that Musk is not; winning the right to describe himself as co-founder in court doesn't bind Wikipedia, obviously, and if sources still describe him in a way that makes it clear that he is not an actual founder, then we have to be clear as well. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, proving my point from the other direction. You say is Musk is definitely not a founder. Others list you as a Musk hate-boner. Yet both sides are looking at the same sources, are (presumably) intelligent and hold their positions very passionately. It's complicated. Just leave the note+link with no names.  Stepho  talk  07:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't complicated at all. Every source that goes into any serious depth is completely unambiguous that only Eberhard and Tarpenning are the actual founders; there is no reason whatsoever to doubt that or omit them. Doing so is the correct answer (nor have I actually seen any serious arguments otherwise above; vague references to "complexity" are not an argument when the sources about what happened are so clear.) Just saying "well some editors say X and some editors say Y, so we should split the difference and say nothing" is false balance - our responsibility is to accurately summarize the sources and report what they say, not to try and make everyone happy. And the sources here are clear, even if you disagree - there is no disagreement over the underlying facts. Eberhard and Tarpenning founded the company; Musk did not but won the right to call himself a founder via a lawsuit, which doesn't actually make him a founder for Wikipedia's purpose and has not resulted in him being described as a founder in the highest-quality, most in-depth sources. How people feel about Musk makes no difference - the facts and coverage are crystal-clear. --Aquillion (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice if it was that simple. E+T came up with the first kernel of the company. E+T registered the company. That is definitely true and for most companies that is a perfectly good basis for saying they were the founders - as long as things remain simple. If they had remained in charge for longer or had remained in charged when the company went from practically a 2-man back-yard operation doing electric conversions of the Lotus Elise into a much larger company doing mass manufacturing of their own vehicle, then they would undoubtedly be founders. But they got kicked out (rightly or wrongly) at the time when it went from a small conversion operation into a real manufacturer. It only turned into a serious company worth looking at when large amounts of money were injected via Musk. If it was simple then E+T would have no leg to stand on when they started the court case to be listed as the only founders. If it was simple then Musk would have let then do the court case and then wipe the floor with them. Instead, the principle participants - those intimately involved and with the most to win or lose - agreed to list all 5 as founders. Are we bound by their agreement? Technically no. But that argument could also say that we are not bound by any body outside of Wikipedia - such as the FAI for world records, the US court for court rulings, etc. So, yes, it is complicated. If we list 2 or 5 names in the infobox then that is elevating that group as the "real" founders (in Wikipedia's voice) and then effectively saying in the notes "some other minorities say this other group". The only neutral way is to say "complicated, see notes" in the infobox and then explain both sides in the main text. It is Wikipedia's job to display facts but when it is complicated we can only present the conflicting facts and leave it at that - it is not Wikipedia's job to judge.  Stepho  talk  23:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If it was simple then Musk would have let then do the court case and then wipe the floor with them.

1. Money is money.
2. The settlement was only after a judge dismissed the portion of the case to only allow E+T to call themselves founders. I see this as Musk not being a huge meanie.

I'm become ambivalent on this since my last comment. On one hand, I really feel like all of these people were transformative to the company, but on the other hand, reliable sources seem to all say that these two founded the company, which could qualify the fiver view as WP:FRINGE. Should we invite that noticeboard? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Two interesting points you highlighted. 1) The judge dismissed E+T being the only founders. 2) Reliable sources seem to all say that these two founded the company. I see these two points as being very important but contradictory to each other, therefore WP cannot judge between them.

Yes, in true WP style we've stagnated again, so the noticeboard is probably the best thing.  Stepho  talk  02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I've added a link at that noticeboard. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: Can you post a link to this noticeboard? Emiya1980 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's the link in the last box on top of WP:FRINGE; Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Tesla, Inc.'s founders Aaron Liu (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• List Eberhard and Tarpenning only since that's been reliably sourced as being viewed as the original founders (which is how most people define the term see organizational founder) when the company was founded. Musk & co obviously have the legal right to describe themselves as such after the fact and their contributions to the company are undeniable but the fact that the decided to designate additional founders after the fact is questionable at best. I'm not opposed to adding a link to the section as a see-also. Avgeekamfot (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• List Eberhard and Tarpenning as the founders, link to section with "(See § Founding)". Wikipedia is not bound by a lawsuit settlement in which they were uninvolved, and we use words in the sense that they generally are understood by our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• @Stonkaments, MartinezMD. Seeing as how vocal you were on an earlier discussion regarding Tesla's founders, your input on an Rfc regarding who qualifies as such would be greatly apprecated.Emiya1980 (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Continue to list in Infobox as redirect to section The "founder" situation is way too complex and nuanced to try to summarize in an infobox. Best to just have the pointer to the section where it is well explicated. (and, also, it seems we have settled this question before after messy contentious Talk page discussion; so really hate to see it come back once again) N2e (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Thought about closing, but it semed borderline enough that an additional comment would be more helpful. My impression is that among the high quality RS that directly address this, more seem to directly credit Eberhard and Tarpenning, and they should be listed. The link is sufficent to document the minority viewpoint in my opinion. It's not like we need to exclude the rest from the infobox, Musk is in "key people" and the other two can go there as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• When reliable sources discuss the history of Tesla, do they describe Musk et al. as "founders" or not? Mokadoshi (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  At most, some cite them as "later co-founders". The chronological narration is always that "E & T founded Tesla in 2002". Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not quite always.

  Forbes lists them as 5 founders: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/11/10/tesla-had-5-founders-only-two-got-really-rich/?sh=40a1d62ef462

  Yahoo Finance talks of co-founders and "the original founders" (ie, E+T): https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-wasnt-original-founder-130014807.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABUDz4EHxHUY-ZzFhLNomfXgBAAD_eJpHvdFTU6AK4_RwH8N2_CEs3Ljknp0EwhfVbjkdE_o4CIyxRD-F688u4FIhzJM7O3cG7S2496mOyvOtaLHL85KUlnHsYQ3piv7ROHdMTy3NEGeCqT3wfcK9GecnPZO_mfx3YaEdgJ5Iwhc

  And of course Tesla themselves only mention Musk when talking of founders. But that's a biased primary source, so we don't count that one.  Stepho  talk  22:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Forbes article indeed plays it straight that there are 5 founders. The article even goes into some gobbledygook and I don't seem to understand, calling E+T Tesla’s original shareholders — the first men to claim ownership of the upstart brand. Yahoo Finance is an aggregator; that news comes from Benzinga.

  But more sources do seem to call E+T the foundrs. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  There really aren't that many articles (from independent third-party reputable sources) that cite five founders. CNet even made a quip headline out of it when news of the settlement broke: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/

  Also, and I brought this up last time I believe, the supposed terms of the undisclosed settlement came from Tesla: "On Monday, a Tesla representative said that Eberhard and other principals in the dispute have come to an agreement. The company did not reveal any details of the resolution, except to say that there are now five, rather than two, agreed-upon "founders" of Tesla."

  From my understanding, neither Eberhard nor Tarpenning have publicly commented on the status of foundership at Tesla since. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Mokadoshi In light of the sources presented by Aaron Liu, Stepho-wrs, and QRep2020; who do you think should be listed as Tesla's founders in the infobox? Emiya1980 (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As the editor who launched this current discussion I'm currently in the process of tallying up who is for and against Eberhard & Tarpenning as the sole founders of Tesla. Just for the purpose of clarification, are you still in favor of listing Elon Musk, Ian Wright and J.B. Straubel as founders, @Aaron Liu:? Emiya1980 (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I should have pointed out the previous discussions at:

1. Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_1#Founders
2. Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Elon_Musk_as_a_founder
3. Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Founders_-_yet_again
4. Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#On_Musk,_Straubel_and_Wright_as_founders
5. Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_3#Founders
6. Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_3#Founders_2
7. Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_3#Why_is_Musk's_forcing_out_of_one_of_the_true_founders_of_Tesla,_Martin_Eberhard_not_in_the_criticisms,_or_lawsuits_and_criticisms?
8. The 2020 RFC which agreed to use "Disputed, see main text": Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_195#Tesla,_Inc. (click on "show")  Stepho  talk  10:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that despite what Musk's done, he and the other two still deserve their credit in starting up the company. But that's just my personal opinion, and reliable sources seem to disagree, and WP is an echo chamber of reliable sources (no offense). Aaron Liu (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Liu This is not a question of who has done most for the company. As previously stated, the "founder" is the person responsible for starting the company. Nothing more, nothing less. Alfred Sloan and Ray Kroc probably did more than any other figure to build General Motors & McDonald's into the corporate juggernauts they are today. Nonetheless, neither of those two were present at those companies' inception; therefore they cannot be considered founders. If you're inclined to credit Elon Musk as a founder, do you have any reliable evidence he had some connection to Tesla coming into being in the first place?Emiya1980 (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, because of the stance of reliable sources, I am not inclined towards inclusion. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Nothing more, nothing less." If only it were that simple. From organizational founder: "In fact, there is no formal, legal definition of what makes someone a co-founder. The right to call oneself a co-founder can be established through an agreement with one's fellow co-founders or with permission of the board of directors, investors, or shareholders of a startup company. When there is no definitive agreement, like a shareholders' agreement, disputes about who the co-founders are, can arise." Most of the time it is simple - often it is just the people who register the company. Sometimes it is complicated - like with Tesla.

Like I mentioned in the 2020 RFC, if we put "E+T (See § Founding)" in the infobox then the skim readers will think that E+T are the only founders and move on. Later they might read Tesla's website and literature saying that Musk was the founder. Conflict.  Stepho  talk  00:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs That is always a possibility. However, as of now, you're currently in the minority.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you indent your comments? They're slightly confusing, sorry.
Also, I don't think you can dismiss someone's argument on Wikipedia just because they's the first one to state it. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The tally is currently 8:7 in favor of listing only Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla's founders. I'll wait a week. If no more editors vote in favor of Musk & company's inclusion by then, I'm closing the discussion and listing Tarpenning and Eberhard as the only founders in the infobox alongside a "(See § Founding)" link. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

8:7 is a no consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Liu The Rfc tag for this discussion has already expired. How else do you suggest resolving this discussion? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No consensus means we stay at the last stable version. See WP:CON and its subsection WP:NOCONSENSUS.  Stepho  talk  04:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

After a majority of editors have found otherwise? Keep dreaming. I'm posting this discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... I've just pointed you to the relevant guidelines. WP does not do majority voting, 8:7 is nowhere near a consensus and is barely even a majority (its so close to 50/50 undecided). By all means, bring in an admin.  Stepho  talk  05:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've posted this discussion on Wikipedia's dispute resolution noticeboard. Here is a link. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Tesla_Inc. It should be at the bottom of said page. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs, RickyCourtney, QRep2020, Aaron Liu, Lukewarmbeer, and Aquillion: Please feel free to provide your own summary of this dispute at the aforementioned link.Emiya1980 (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

My count:

just redirect RickyCourtney, Stepho, JArthur1984, N2e = 4

E + T and redirect QRep2020, Emiya1980, SMcCandlish, InvadingInvader, Aquillion, Avgeekamfot, AndyTheGrump = 7

include all 5 Lukewarmbeer, Aaron Liu, Ortizesp, Rlendog = 4

QRep2020 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

and for what it's worth, I agree with Aaron, if I closed this I more likely would have closed it as no consensus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as how this debate has gone on for a month without any compromise in sight, I'll take the first step. Seeing as how there are many who feel that it's too big of a provocation to fans of Musk to exclude him from the "Founders" list, I propose that he, and he alone, be included with Eberhard and Tarpenning. However, in order to be included, there should be an asterisk next to his name linking to a note specifying why he is being included despite having no role in the company's beginning.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

ehhh, alone is stretching it. Musk fans aren't the problem here.

It sounds like you're proposing the current "See..." link be removed as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Either that or the founding section of the page should be removed entirely. If you're not going to put anything remotely informative there, it's just a waste of space.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I opted against closing and instead left an opinion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You meant the founding section on the infobox, right? A link to the section is still informative. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

A lawsuit involving the relevant individuals has been settled with an agreement that 5 individuals can call themselves co-founders. With that those 5 individuals are the co-founders and this should be reflected here. The assertion regarding feelings of "provocation to fans of Musk" has no bearing on this. Lklundin (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The lawsuit settlement doesn't change reality. The only correct argument for who should be listed as co-founders is what the best sources say. TarnishedPath^talk 00:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• List Eberhard and Tarpenning only. This is what the best sources say and we should therefore reflect them with no qualification. The fact that there was a settlement to a lawsuit is irrelevant to reality. The best sources make it clear that Musk was not an actual founder and therefore we should not play word games about the issue. TarnishedPath^talk 13:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Update on tally:

  just redirect RickyCourtney, Stepho, JArthur1984, N2e = 4

  E + T and redirect QRep2020, Emiya1980, SMcCandlish, InvadingInvader, Aquillion, Avgeekamfot, AndyTheGrump, TarnishedPath, Alpha3031 = 9

  include all 5 Lukewarmbeer, Aaron Liu, Ortizesp, Rlendog, Lklundin = 5

  70% want a change. And, for the record, I oppose listing Musk alone with the two actual founders. QRep2020 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  most of us also agree to also include the redirect Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

But not just the redirect.Emiya1980 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• List Eberhard and Tarpenning only. "Founder" is not a legal term. I think we use the conventional definition, and explain the wrinkles in the text. Lfstevens (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevance of this sentence

At the end of the introduction, the article says:

Tesla has been the subject of lawsuits, government scrutiny, and journalistic criticism, stemming from allegations of whistleblower retaliation, worker rights violations, safety issues, product defects, fraud, and controversial statements from Musk.

This is all undoubtedly true, but I would argue that for any sufficiently large corporation, such observations are extremely unexceptional, to the point that it'd be more noteworthy if the opposite were true. Are there ANY major automakers to which the above statement wouldn't fit? Yet no such observation is in the Wikipedia introductory paragraphs for Ford, GM, Toyota, and most other large automakers.

There may be some value in in replacing it with sentence about the controversial nature of Musk as CEO, but the notion that a big corporation has been the subject of lawsuits, government scrutiny, and journalistic criticism seems far too unremarkable to warrant space in the introduction. Simon Wright (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Every large company has such allegations, so no need to put it in the lead. Of course, we keep the Tesla,_Inc.#Lawsuits_and_controversies section, just like other large companies.  Stepho  talk  02:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, there has been a tremendous amount of independent third party sources noting all of the issues mentioned in the sentence. The amount dwarfs what has been reported relative to, say, another EV company. Or another auto company for that matter, besides maybe Ford, which has been around a century.

The sentence has also been workshopped in previous Talk page discussions and has survived GANs. QRep2020 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the question is: are any of these exceptional, as compared to Tesla’s peers?

Are the lawsuits exceptional?

Is the government scrutiny exceptional?

Is the journalistic criticism exceptional?

Are the allegations exceptional?

I’d argue that the company is subject to a very high level of journalistic scrutiny, mostly because of Musk, which tends to amplify the coverage of the other issues beyond what other automakers would receive.

The controversial statements from Musk belong on his page unless directly related to Tesla. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to reflect the coverage of a topic? If there is a very high level of journalistic scrutiny comparatively, we can mention that of course, but that makes it all the more important to state clearly and early. QRep2020 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this article does reflect the coverage of the topic. The question at hand is, are these allegations so exceptional that they warrant such exceptional coverage in the introduction? RickyCourtney (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Like we agreed, the journalistic coverage is largely critical and Tesla receives a lot of it. The article reflects that exceptional coverage and addresses many of the issues that constitutes it. A general purpose of the introduction for a Wikipedia article is to highlight what the article addresses. The Tesla article's introduction currently summarizes the extent of the exceptional nature of the allegations and controversies surrounding Tesla and does so with a single sentence. It situates the reader appropriately. QRep2020 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla gets more media coverage mostly because it is the new kid on the block - ie WP:RECENTISM. The allegations themselves seem to be about the same as any other large company. It's just that the media watches Tesla a lot closer than it watches the others - partly due to Musk doing a lot of showmanship stuff. So, putting the allegations right at the very top is out of proportion to the allegations themselves.  Stepho  talk  00:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. Musk and Tesla have clearly pushed the boundaries in many ways, well beyond the norms of a typical large company, and the significant volume of critical media attention reflects this. Musk, in his role as CEO of Tesla, has been credibly accused of committing two of the largest instances of securities fraud of all time, as well as arguably the largest consumer fraud of all time, in addition to a thoroughly documented history of retaliating against whistleblowers. These actions are egregious and noteworthy by any standard, and clearly make up a key part of Tesla's story, and as such we should not seek to hide or minimize them. Stonkaments (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

When you describe the delays surrounding FSD as "the largest consumer fraud of all time" I'm led to wonder if you are aware of any other consumer frauds perpetrated by any other corporations. I'm inclined to wonder if you're aware of whistleblowing at other companies, or "accusations" of securities fraud.

Believe me, I'm not saying that there's nothing for Tesla or Musk to answer to in the above. These aren't trivial things. But they're also not remotely exceptional, even if you ignore WP:RECENTISM and limit yourself to the past two decades. Simon Wright (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead section still fails to illustrate that these controversies are more exceptional than controversies in other companies.

"Tesla has been the subject of lawsuits, government scrutiny, and journalistic criticism, stemming from allegations of whistleblower retaliation, worker rights violations, safety issues, product defects, fraud, and controversial statements from Musk."

Apart from the Musk part, you can apply this exact sentence to most other auto companies. Toyota, GM, Ford, Stellantis, you name it.

I think if we were to keep the sentence, add a bit more detail. For example, "worker rights violations such as sexual harassment allegations, and controversial statements from Musk such as overpromise..." etc. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding more detail. QRep2020 (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. QRep2020 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The added detail doesn't materially change the original criticism. None of these controversies are exceptional or remarkable enough to be worthy of the article introduction:

• Allegations of sexual harassment have occurred at pretty much every large corporation on planet earth. Ford Motor Company is especially noteworthy with a long trail of allegations and many settlements. Curiously there's no mention of any of them on Ford's article anywhere, let alone the introduction.
• "Anti-union activities" is not remarkable. Companies like Apple Inc. and Starbucks have been embroiled in substantially more serious and widespread "activities" yet neither have these featured in their respective introductions.
• "safety defects leadings to dozens of recalls" is wildly unremarkable. Recalls are very common.
• "The lack of a public relations department" is unconventional, but I fail to see how this forms a per se criticism.

The criticisms of Musk over-promising self-driving is reasonable and relevant. It's an important part of the Tesla story over the past 5+ years. Simon Wright (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla is genuinly a corporate outlier, see their (lack of) public and media relations departments for more on that... "Electrek can confirm that Tesla has dissolved its PR department — technically becoming the first automaker who doesn’t talk to the press. It’s something that we have discussed on our podcast several times over the last few months, but now that reporters are publicly complaining about it,[1] we thought we’d clear things up in an article." so saying that they're just like all of the other corporations doesn't appear to hold water. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's unconventional. I can see how it might be frustrating for some people media. But I don't see how it's a per se criticism from the NPOV of an encyclopaedia, let alone worthy of the article introduction.

In fact it's so unremarkable that I can't seem to find any reference to it in the body of the article, nor on the page Criticism of Tesla, Inc. Despite this, it's now somehow worthy of the article's introduction. I think that speaks volumes. Simon Wright (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

References

English

Tesla model 3 And tesla model Y 169.224.73.236 (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't understand. Use more words.  Stepho  talk  01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)